alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# The Unveiling of Venus Magellan radar mapping mission

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  The Unveiling of Venus Magellan radar mapping mission 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  Jet Propulsion Laboratory (U.S.) 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Computer-generated view of the surface of Venus. 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  Venus (Planet) 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  161 × 92 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at The University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  027801383.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ISAIAH REDD, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 444, 38 CMR 242

No. 20,829

March 22, 1968

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Lieutenant Colonel Martin S. Drucker,*and *Major David J. Passamaneck*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major John F. Webb, Jr.,*and *Captain James P. Mercurio*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted review in this case to consider the same instructional issue then pending undetermined in United States v Ferguson, 17 USCMA 441, 38 CMR 239. For the reasons set out in our opinion in the *Ferguson*case, we hold there was no error and we affirm the decision of the board of review.
July 8 , 2015

Mr. Chris Barnett

3 159 Redwood Ave

Grants Pass

, OR 975727

Dear Mr. Barnett :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It e xplains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your June 29 th 2015 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

-

2308 ), but we are unable to process your req uest any further. The information you sent does

no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you see k relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affe ct safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the e xemption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Pro gram Analyst

, Airmen and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 1 7

- 4 597

_____________________________
H ASSON W ILLIAMS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for D uval County

. Angela M. Cox , Judge

. January 31, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , R OWE , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

___ __________________________ Hasson Williams , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9249 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require the publication of scientific 

data, incident data, or other pertinent data relied on by an agency 

to justify a rule. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2024 

Mr. EDWARDS (for himself and Mr. PFLUGER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require the publication of scientific data, incident data, or other pertinent 

data relied on by an agency to justify a rule. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Show Me the Science 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS. 

7 Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, is amend8 ed by adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9249 IH

1 ‘‘(f)(1) The publication of a rule under subsection (d) 

2 shall include the scientific data, incident data, or other 

3 pertinent data relied on by the agency to justify the rule, 

4 except in the case that the head of the agency— 

5 ‘‘(A) determines, on a nondelegable basis, 

6 that publication of such data would impede 

7 public safety or security; 

8 ‘‘(B) submits to the Administrator of the 

9 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

10 (referred to in this subsection as the ‘Adminis11 trator’) a notification disclosing the reasons for 

12 the determination under subparagraph (A); and 

13 ‘‘(C) publishes such notification, consistent 

14 with public safety, security, and privacy inter15 ests, in the Federal Register. 

16 ‘‘(2) The Administrator shall issue guidance for agen17 cies on compliance with this section and shall monitor such 

18 compliance. 

19 ‘‘(3) In this subsection, the term ‘scientific data’ 

20 means recorded factual material that is commonly accept21 ed in the scientific community and is of sufficient quality 

22 to validate and replicate research findings.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
MBS AAI R GROU P 41 0 Nort h 44" " Stree t Suit e 70 0 Phoenix , A Z 8500 8 Offic e (602 ) 685-400 0 Fa x(602 ) 685-435 0 Decembe r28 , 200 9 

# pffp ^ •Hiio? - 

# d3^i ^

M . ClayMortiz , Jr . Unite d State s Departmen t o fTransportatio n Researc h an d Technolog yAdministratio n Burea u o fTransportatio n Statistics , OAI , RTS-4 2 120 0 NewJerse yAve , SE , Eas t Building , E34 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Re. : Confidentia l Treatmen t Reques t fo rBT S For m 4 1 fo rMes a Airlines , Inc. ; BT S For m 298-C , Schedul e F- 1 fo rAi rMidwest , Inc . an d Freedo m Airlines , Inc . (th e "Forms" ) Dea rMr . M . Cla yMortiz , Jr. , Pleas e accep t th e followin g reques t i n referenc e t o th e abov e liste d Forms . As previousl ycommunicate d t o th e Departmen to fTransportatio n (th e "Department") , Mes a Ai rGroup , Inc' s ("Mesa" ) fisca l yea rend s o n Septembe r30"^. A s yo u know , Mes a alon g wit h it s subsidiarie s includin g th e thre e airline s liste d above fil e consolidate d financia l statements . Ai l thre e o fth e airline s liste d abov e have fisca l year s endin g o n Septembe r30'^ . Mes a i s currentl ypreparin g Its fourt h quarte ran d yea ren d financia l statement s an d expect s t o fil e wit h th e SE C n o late rtha n January15 , 2010 . Th e informatio n containe d i n th e Form s contain s non-publi cinformatio n tha t wil l b e include d i n Mesa' s SE C filings . Mes a i s providin g t o th e Departmen t unaudite d financia l informatio n i n th e attache d Form s and , i fther e are an ychanges , wil l resubmi t update d financia l informatio n consisten t wit h th e fina l audite d financials . Accordingly , Mes a require s tha tth e Departmen tkee p th e informatio n provide d i n th e Form s confidentia l an d exclud e i tfro m an ydisclosure s mad e pursuan tt o a Freedo m o fInformatio n Ac treques t o rothe rreques tfo rinformatio n fro m an ynon governmenta l entit yunti l afte rMes a ha s file d it s financia l statement s wit h th e SE C that i t expect s t o fil e a s indicate d above . I fyo u nee d an yadditiona l informatio n regardin g thi s request , pleas e d o not hesitat e t o contact m e a t (602 ) 685-4052 . Sincerely , Mes a Ai rGroup , inc .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________

)

JASPER L. DOCKERY )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0806 (PLF)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF TREASURY, Internal Revenue Service, )

)

Defendant. )

__________________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. #9] is GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED in its entirety.

This is a final appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).

SO ORDERED.

/s/______________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: January 23, 2009
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-12-00602-CV

_________________

IN RE THEODORE R. KEHTEL AND JENNIFER C. KEHTEL

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Invoking section 15.0642 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, 

Theodore R. Kehtel and Jennifer C. Kehtel seek mandamus relief from the trial court’s 

order of October 1, 2012, which transferred venue of their suit for injunctive and 

declaratory relief to enforce an easement in land owned by Montgomery County residents 

Everett A. Laas and Annie K. Lass but located in Leon County, Texas. See Tex. Civ. 

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.0642 (West 2002). Relators have not established that they 

are entitled to the relief sought in their petition. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied. 

PETITION DENIED. 
2

PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered December 28, 2012

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
(Reap. Dec. 8778)

#### Martin Mendler *v.*United States

Entry No. 876988.

(Decided March 28, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any ease shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Transition Report of Le Gaga Holdings Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the transition period from April 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Shing Yung Ma, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Date: November 23, 2012



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Shing Yung Ma      
|Name:  |  | Shing Yung Ma          
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499] 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of STP Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) to withdraw its January 31, 2006, application for proposed amendments to Facility Operating Licenses numbered NPF-76 and NPF-80, respectively, for the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, located in Matagorda County. The proposed amendments would have revised the Technical Specification 3.8.3.1, “Onsite Power Distribution—Operating.” 

                    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 28, 2006 (71 FR 10077). However, by letter dated March 26, 2007, the licensee withdrew the proposed change.                 

                    For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated January 31, 2006, and the licensee's letter dated March 26, 2007, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,                     *http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm.html*. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to                     *pdr@nrc.gov*.                 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of March 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mohan C. Thadani, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. E7-6086 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 21, 2017

a0614 

# Order

Clerk June 21, 2017

154857

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154857

COA: 332700

Ingham CC: 15

- 000175

- FH

BRIAN MICHAEL ALEXANDER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.30 5(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment

that reversed the Ingham Circuit Court’s November 20, 2015 order granting the

defendant’s motion for a new trial. Although the Court of Appeals correctly co ncluded

that the trial court applied an improper standard in granting a new trial based on newly

discovered evidence, it erred in further determining that the new evidence would not

justify the grant of a new trial. The evidence

– the discovery of the com plainant’s cell

phone records

– was newly discovered, was not cumulative, and could not have been

discovered with reasonable diligence and produced at trial. Whether this evidence

“makes a different result probable on retrial,” People v Cress , 468 Mich 67 8, 692 (2003),

should first be determined by the trial court. We REMAND this case to the Ingham

Circuit Court to determine, applying the Cress standard, whether the newly discovered

evidence justifies a new trial.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
# C_2007315EN.01001702.xml

| 22.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz, Austria) — Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

(Case C-251/06) (1)

1

(Indirect taxes - Raising of capital - Transfer of the seat of a company - Abolition of the capital duty charged to a company)

(2007/C 315/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat — Interpretation of Article 4(1)(a) and (g), Article 4(3)(b) and Article 7(2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Capital duty charged to a company which has transferred its effective centre of management from a Member State which has abolished capital duty to a Member State which charges capital duty

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(g) and (3)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 and by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted to the effect that the waiver by a Member State of the charging of capital duty does not preclude a company falling within one of the categories referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of that directive from being classified as a capital company for the purposes of charging capital duty within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of that directive if its effective centre of management is transferred from that Member State to another Member State in which that duty is still levied. Nevertheless, the result of such an interpretation cannot be to encourage conduct characterised by the putting in place of artificial arrangements with the sole aim of obtaining a fiscal advantage. It is for the national court to verify whether there is objective evidence of action constituting an abusive practice of that kind in the circumstances of the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
Croman Corp

801 Avenue C • White City, OR 97503 • (541) 826

- 4455 • FAX (541) 826

- 4730 July 14 , 2016

US Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue

SE West Building Ground Floor

Room W12

- 140

Washington, DC 20590

Croman Corporation

– FAA Authorization to use a restricted category S

- 61 A or

SH

- 3H helicop ter s for training/checking for initial types/61.58 checks.

Reference (a) 14 CFR 91.313 (a,c)

(b) 14 CFR 61.31 and 61.58

Croman Corp requested and received Exemption No. 16646 exempting Croman

Corporation from §91.313(a,c) to conduct training and check flights as required by

§61.31 and 61.58 in a restricted category aircraft.

Exemption No. 16646 was issued on May 12, 2016. Croman Corporation has

purchased an additional Restricted C ategory Sikorsky S

- 61A. The registration number

is N624CK

.

Croman Corp requests an amendment to our existing Exemption to include Sikorsky S

61A

, registration number N624CK.

P lease contact the undersigned at (541) 826

- 4455, or email bhbeattie@croman.net with

any questions or request for addition a l information

.

Very truly yours,

Brian H. Beattie

Croman Corporation